■Ss- 



.Ss- 



H 



■) :-»-^.\ 



TT 



3E5 



THE SEYMOUR 

FINGERPRINT 
_ SYSTEM-*^ 

Copyright 1912 by L". SEYMOlj^ all Rights Reserved 
Los Aiwefes, Cal. 




IL 



J 



Iinitir@dlMeti©ini 



The use of Fingerprints, as a means of identification, dates back 
to the Assyrians. These people used the thumb mark to sign their land 
deeds. The Chinese have used Fingerprints for over four thousand years ;. 
the Hindoos for almost as long. 

As a means of identifyi-ng depositors the system has been used in 
India since 1864. In the United States the idea has only recently been 
taken up but it is gaining ground rapidl}^ and promises to be universal 
within a short time. , , 

To banks, as a means of identifying depositors the system is invalu- 
able and when a few basic principles are understood it is impossible to 
make a mistake. The question of JUDGMENT does not enter. 

My purpose in devising this system was to present a simple yet sure 
means of comparing prints. A few hours' study of the following will 
enable any person to compare rapidly and with absolute certainty. 



iCl,A329285 



^ 



^\ ^ 



I?' 



CHAPTER I. 



The first thing- to be learned is HOW TO MAKE PRINTS COR- 
RECTLY. 

Most banks that are now using the fingerprints simply have the 
depositor press his finger on an ink pad and then dab the finger on a 
card which is filed, along with the particulars generally taken. This 
action results in what is called a "dabbed" print. (See Fig. 1.) This 
method is incorrect. 



( F i g u re 1 ) 





(Figure 2) 



To make a good, clear print take a common ink pad, violet or black. 
Do not use red, it fades. 

Ask the depositor to press his left thumb gently on the pad, rolling 
the thumb across the pad so that the entire surface above the flexure of 
the first joint and from ^lail to nail will be inked. Then have him roll 
his finger across the signature card. This action should produce a print 
like that in Fig. 2. The reason for taking rolled prints is that it gives 
a much larger area for comparison. 

See that the pad is clean and not too wet. Keep a small bottle of 
gasoline and a package of surgeons' cotton handy so that the depositor 
may clean his finger. 

The teller who takes the print should initial the card. By a little 
experimenting you can soon learn to make good prints and you will 
then be able to instruct others how to do it. 

CHAPTER n 

Among all the billions of fingerprints in the world there are only 
three varieties ; ARCHES. LOOPS, and WHORLS. 
In the ARCH (Fig. 3). 
The lines or ridsfes run across the finser in a transverse manner 





(Figure 4) 



(Figure 5) 



(Figure 3) 

In the LOOP (Fig. 4). 

The lines are enclosed in a bay-like form and loop towards the center 
of the finger. 

In the AVHORL (Fig. 5). 

The lines revolve from the center in a whirling manner. 

Arches form 5%, Loops 60%, and Whorls 35% of the total. 
Under Whorls are classed a peculiar sort of pattern called COM- 
POSITES. (See Fig. 6.) Composites form only one-tenth of one per 
cent, of the total and are rarely met with. 




(Figure 6) 

A little study, under a magnifying- glass, of the illustrations 3-4-5-6 
will enable you to distinguish the difference between the patterns. You 
will meet with many variations of these patterns, but the variations will 
only be in the formations of the ridges. All loops resemble each other 
in general outline. The same applies to whorls and arches. 

\\"e will suppose that you have a depositor's print upon a card on 
file ; a check (or withdrawal order) is presented and the person presenting 
it impresses his print upon it and the print is a loop. You look up the 
card in your file and find that the print thereon is a whorl. It goes 
without saying the check is to be instantly rejected. 

Take your own prints and those of your associates and learn to dis- 
tinguish the difi^erent patterns. When vou have done so proceed to Chap- 
ter^III. 

CHAPTER III. 

Upon loops and whorls we find two distinct points from which the 
comparison is made. These are called the CORE and the DELTA 

The Core of a loop is the center of the loop or staple. Illustrations 
of cores will be found in Figs. 7 and 8. The cores are indicated in Fig. 7 
by small circles in ink. 



pa^ 



CORES TO LOOP.S. 
Hods :— their envelopes are indicated by dot^. 



31 

Single. 



32 33 34 35 

Eyed. Double.. Multiple. Monkey. 

Staples : — tlieir envelopes are indicated by dots. 



M uif: 



35 R 



37 38 39 40 41 42 

parted. J parted. | parted. Tuning fork. Singleeyed. Doubleeyed. 

B-nvelopes whether to Rods or Staples :— here staples only are dotted. 



45 40 47 43 

i parted. I paited. Single eyed. Double eyed. 




FtG. 15. 




CORES TO WHORLS. 




49 


50 


51 5i 


53 


54 


Circles. 


Ellipses. 


Spiral. Twist 
(Figure 7) 


Plait. 


Deep Spiral. 



From "Fingerprinls," Courtesy of McMillan and Co.. New York 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/seymourfingerpriOOseym 




Tlio two top rows arc loops. The tliird row and loft half of tlic| fourth are whorls. The right half of the fourth row are composites. The fifth row consists of arches 

A little study of these illustrations will enable you to recognize \\xc different classes. The number of lines that intervene between the tore and delta of the loops in the first two rows you will una marKui 
in the upper right hand corner of each small print. The last two rovjs consist of loops and whorls, each print having a line drawn from core to delta, with number of intervening lines marked in ink on eacn pnni. 



In whorls the Core is the center of the circle or the place at Avhich the 
ridge starts to revolve. See the lower line in F'ur. 7. 




(Figure 8) 

The Delta is formed either by the branching- off of a single ridge or 
by the abrupt divergence of two ridges that had hitherto run side by side. 
See X and Y in P^ig. 9. 




(Figure 9) 

'e only one Delta. Whorls have two and Arches none at all. 

re : Let us suppose that you have two prints that are loops 
like in their general apipearance. Like those in Fig. 10, for 




B (Figure 10) A 

make your comjiarison, rule a STRAK 
,^elta. on each ])rint. (See i^g. 11.) 



r line from the 




(Figure 11) 

The Delta \\ill l)e found stnietinies a))o\e. sonielimes below and 
sometimes opposite tlie Lore, but remember that whcrcwr it appears a 
straight line must be ruled from Lore to Delta. 

When this has been done count ilu- nund)er of ridgrs that cross the 
line between the Core and Delta. If {hew arr not cxactlv the same 



number of lines in each print you may. declare the prints dissimilar at 
once without further comparison. 

In counting the ridges, do not include the core or delta in your 
count. That is, you count only the INTERVENING ridges. 

Now suppose that your count proves that there are the same number 
of lines intervening in each print. Do not accept this as conclusive that 
the prints are identical, but continue the comparison. Count out three 
ridges from the core of one print and note the appearance of the third 
ridge. By examining the ridges you will see that various peculiarities 
occur, such as bifurcations and stoppages. These are illustrated in 
Fig. 12. 



Y)\f^Kc^'y\of^^ 





(Figure 13) 



(Figure 12) 

Trace your third ridge along its length and note if the same bifurca- 
tions occur in each print. If you find ten points of similarity between 
two prints you may consider the prints as having been made by the same 
person. 

Perhaps the ridge that 3"ou decide to trace will not bifurcate at all 
and will continue on unbroken right around the print. Of course, the 
corresponding ridge on the other print must do the same or the prints are 
not identical. 

Some loops have as few as two intervening ridges between the 
core and the delta, wdiile others have as many as thirty. The core is 
always the central point from which the comparison is started. If you 
compare the third ridge, from the core, on one print with the third ridge 
on another print and trace them both around and the two ridges are 
not exactly identical in every way, then the prints were made by different 
persons. 

If you trace the corresponding ridge on both prints and find that 
they agree, then you can safely declare the prints identical. You may, 
of course, carry out the tracing on as many ridges as you like. I will 
say that you must find ten or more ridges to agree before declaring the 
prints identical. You understand that this far-reaching comparison is 
only necessary when two prints are nearly alike. 

I have never found it necessary to look for more than four points of 
similarity but I am putting it at ten to make it absolutely certain. You 



will probably never find it necessary to do more than count the ridges. 

Refer back to Fig. 10. You will note that, although the two prints 
look alike, A has eighteen intervening line and B eleven lines. 

Another simple and rapid way of comparing is to divide the print 
into one hundred squares, each square of equal area, and then compare 
the contents ot ten corresponding squares. Each small square will have 
its own peculiarities (such as bifurcations and stoppages) and they are 
easily compared. 

To save the trouble of ruling lines to make the squares you can 
easily prepare screens. Take a small piece of celluloid (an old photo 
film, with the emulsion washed off, does very well) and rule two large 
squares one inch and five-eighths by one inch and one-quarter, side 
by side a quarter of an inch apart. Divide both into one hundred small 
ssuares by ruling ten lines each way. Place these two screens over the 
prints, being careful to center the cores of both prints in the same cor- 
responding small squares of each screen. It will then be an easy matter 
to compare ten corresponding squares. 

Fig. 13 illustrates this method, showing a loop under a screen. 

Many prints, even though they be of like pattern, will not present 
any difficulty. For instance, you may find two loops that resemble each 
other. One may have four lines between core and delta, the other may 
have ten. You are able to tell without counting. Be careful when they 
look alike and contain nearly the same number of ridges. Make your 
count carefully. 

Whorls are compared in exactly the same manner as Loops. But 
Whorls have two deltas so count out to the right of the core. 

Two Whorls somewhat similar in appearance are illustrated in Fig. 
14, but they are easily differentiated by counting, ^, r,., t , \ 





Zm___ 


l^^4^ 


i^ 




. 1 


^^^^^^^^^ 




f" 


"^^^m^ ' W} ^ W 






V 


f***' 


iill 






1 




^ ^^^^^s 






3s 


^ ^^_/[^_^^ 




i 


1 1 4:^:1 


'^ ■"-I-: 



(Figure 14) (Figure 15) 

To compare Arches, square them ofif in the same manner as you 
would a loop. See Fig. 15. Then compare the corresponding squares. 

In Fig. 14 you will note that one of the whorls has a white line run- 
ning through it. This is a scar. 

NEVER, under any circumstances take scars into consideration 
when comparing prints. Prints will show a scar when it is fresh, but 
when the scar heals the ridges grow up and the print resumes its original 
appearance. Note the ridges only and disregard any other mark. The 
ridges never change from birth to death. Upon Fig. 16 you will note a 
scar across print C. Print D is an impression of the same finger taken 
three months later. The scar has almost entirely disappeared, but may 
be observed by using a glass. E is the same finger taken a year later. 
The scar has entirely disappeared. 




(Figure 16) 

You will also notice upcn some of the illustrations herein what ap- 
pear to be white spots on the print. These are caused by the finger not 
being pressed down hard enough on the paper. Do not pay any attention 
to these white spots if you find them in your prints. That is, do not take 
them into consideration when making your comparison. Rely on the 
ridges alone. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



CONCLUSION 'III 

029 714 053 P 

The foregoing is all there is to the system and if the rules are fol- 
lowed you cannot make a mistake. 

I will be glad to answer questions at any time. 

The depositor should be recjuired to impress his print on the with- 
drawal order in the presence of the teller. 

In case any depositor objects to inking his fingers, an excellent print 
may be obtained by recjuesting the depositor to pass his thumb through 
his hair, after which it is rolled across the signature card. This action 
will leave a small deposit of oil and if graphite is dusted gently across 
the card with a soft camels hair brush the graphite will adhere and bring 
out the impression as clearly as if it was taken with ink. 

I say, take the impression of the left thumb because that member 
is found to be less liable to be missing or injured. Some banks take three 
or four fingers, but this is not necessary although it can be done if 
you wish. In case the left thumb is missing or so injured that it cannot 
be taken, then take the right thumb and note the divergence from the 
rule, upon the card. 

Let me add one word of advice. Do not attempt to use your own 
judgment upon prints that appear to be alike. Always apply the test. 
Of course there are many prints that may be dififerentiated at a glance, 
but when there is any similarity the test should be applied. 



.Ss- 



nn,!^,f^.'!\?Y OF CONGRESS 



029 714 053 I 



Hollinger 

pH 8.5 

MiU Run F03-2193 



